Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Al Gore's Church of Climatism
James Delingpole, the writer, journalist and broadcaster has written an article in today's Telegraph condemning many of today's leading figures of being members of Al Gore's Church of Climatism. He claims that James Lee, the gunman who was shot dead by police after taking hostages at the Discovery HQ, was also a member. Lee wrote a manifesto that he posted on the internet which included:
"The humans? The planet does not need humans.
You MUST KNOW the human population is behind all the pollution and problems in the world, and YET you encourage the exact opposite instead of discouraging human growth and procreation. Surely you MUST ALREADY KNOW this!"
Whereas it is true that Al Gore, the Prince of Wales, Jonathon Porritt and David Attenborough do believe that there are too many people on our planet, they do not, like Lee, try to use force to achieve their aims, but try to convince us through reason. Why, however, is there any movement against and condemnation of those who claim that the planet is over-populated - when it is plainly true?
Those who benefit from this over-population bring forth endless scientific arguments to prove that the Earth could support many more of we humans with the use of GM crops and other techniques developed by scientists. However, they will not concede that when mankind does try to tamper, excessively, with the natural world - there are usually unexpected and unwanted consequences.
Whereas it is true that Al Gore does seem to have been richly rewarded for this work, so suspicion does fall on his motives, this accusation cannot be aimed at the other three honourable gentlemen who have gone about their work in the traditional British way, not for fame or fortune - but through a love of humanity, the natural world and a desire to avoid unnecessary suffering.
The argument with regard to over-population has been highjacked by those who wish to disprove that the climate is warming. It is true that if the climate is warming and this is caused by man through the excessive production of CO2 this will exacerbated the problem of over-population because the planet's capacity to produce food will be reduced, but whether this is the case or just a temporary state caused by some other phenomenon the over-population problem remains.
The Earth's population has tripled since WWII, with life expectancy rising in most parts of the world as the scientific community find cures for those ailments which reduce mankind's lifespan, clearly over-population is a problem - if not now, then it will be in the not too distant future. Since measures to combat the numbers on the planet, if they are not to be too extreme, take a long time to take effect - it is an issue that urgently needs attention.
There is of course a different approach, which will take effect if the situation is not managed. Survival of the fittest will be the outcome the law that has ruled us for the vast majority of our time on Earth. What those who battle for the issue to be attended to are trying to avoid is - that our children or our children's children are not faced with the problem, each day, of finding enough food and uncontaminated drinking water to survive and that being the sum total of their lives.
We have seen on our TV screens how many people in Pakistan simply face surviving each day as a result of the floods. These floods will subside and gradually the survivors will begin returning to their previous lives - if we should arrive at the point where the planet cannot provide enough food for the global population in a number of decades time - the Pakistani's present lifestyle will be a permanent condition in many parts of the globe.
We in Britain should take particular note for we are only able to produce 50-60% of our food needs - worsening as the population rises. Food prices are already rising rapidly and the serious danger is that as the world's population continues to rise, our children or our children's children will not be able to afford to import what is required for their needs - or it will not even be available! The aim of controlling and reducing the global population is a noble aim - with such evidence why would anyone want to find reasons to prevent a plan being devised and agreed between the nations of the world?
To answer this question it is necessary to consider who benefits from a rising global population. Nation's leaders might prefer to have as many subjects as possible, ambitious religious leaders may prefer their religion is followed by the maximum possible - but it is the global corporations whose very structures are geared to growth that would fear a steady decline in their potential customer base who might see such a development as most alarming.